The period covered by the present work extends from 1850 to 1887, from the beginning of the rapid growth of railway systems to the Interstate Commerce Act. In but a little more than a generation there was tremendous expansion in railways, in society, in social consciousness, and in government. Normally, the aid aspect became smaller and smaller, dwindling to a sort of negative aid which a railway receives when the friction of political machinery retards or prevents the hostile working of social conscience or public opinion; and regulation grew, changing from a negative disburdening of commerce from private restrictions to a more positive control. The demand for railways had become more qualitative. Accordingly, Book I. concerns itself with federal aid, and Book III. with regulation. Book II. deals with Pacific railways. This is obviously a cross-classification. The subject, however, has such distinctness and importance that it seems best to treat, it so. And it serves as a concrete example of the transition from aid to regulation. In Book II., then, there is to a certain extent a chronological study of forces treated more topically in Books I. and III. Other cases will be found in which completeness in topical development has been sacrificed to chronology,2 but for the most part the history is topical. On the basis of aid and regulation the history of railways during the nineteenth century might have been divided at 1870, that being about the year at which the spirit of positive regulation became dominant. But inasmuch as the two ideas are not separate but continually overlap, other bases for division into periods have been adopted. It is simply to be noted that the percentage, so to speak, of regulatory ideas grows, until about 1870 it exceeds fifty per cent. of the railway consciousness of Congress. The importance of the thirty-seven years covered can hardly be over-estimated. They are the crucible in which the heat of growing nationalism and the forces back of the granger movement worked out a railway-regulation idea which, for good or ill, was to dominate for many years. They are the mold in which the idea was cast. To understand the spirit of the laws E. g., discussion of aid in chapter on the Railway and Public Defense. in force today their history must be grasped, and this history is broader than is commonly supposed. Were the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 the accurate embodiment of the common sense of the nation? If so, what was the economic ground back of that common sense? These are questions whose answer has present and future value. The nation entered upon a conscious policy of aiding railways through large land-grants and loans of public credit. The results are instructive, to say the least, and the questron arises, why did the nation not construct railways like those to the Pacific? Strong historical arguments bearing on the expediency of government ownership are involved in the answer. A congressional history of railways necessarily throws light on political subjects. From one point of view the present volume is a summary record of one phase of Congress' activity from which some judgment as to that body's efficiency may be drawn. In this connection the question will be put: has Congress a memory? Neither in this volume nor in the one preceding has the mistake been made of ignoring a consideration of railway history outside of Congress. The general setting of the congressional history has been continually borne in mind, nor has attention. been confined to congressional material. It is surprising, moreover, how nearly complete a history of railways might be drawn. from such material, so often in the country do inventors, projectors, and complainants make their voices heard in the federal legislature. A question which may arise concerns the validity or weight of certain speeches, votes, etc. It is the writer's belief that such material generally has its significance. Even speeches printed but not delivered were composed for a purpose, which purpose must be to please a constituency. In nine cases out of ten the attitude of the Congressman will reflect that of his section, and for this reason the name of his State is generally shown. It is not necessary that he be learned or sincere. Does he represent his constituency, is the question. Care has been taken in each case in answering this question. |
